liberation

Identity politics vs class politics - 8: Neoliberalism and identity politics

Many commentators and leftists have struggled to reconcile the parallel development and dominance of neoliberal economic policies with the development and dominance of social liberalism and identity politics in New Zealand. Since the mid-1980s, governments of all hues have, on the one hand been economically rightwing, and on the other, relatively ‘progressive’ on social issues. Increasingly feminists and Maori nationalists, for example, are welcomed into an Establishment that is still decidedly neoliberal. Yet these have not been distinct and unrelated developments. In contrast to the commonly held view that sees the coexistence of neoliberal economic, and socially liberal policies as a contradiction, this blog post attempts to highlight how policies such as biculturalism and neoliberal orthodoxies actually supplement each other. More broadly, the new liberal social agenda promoted initially by the Fourth Labour Government and state bureaucracies went hand in hand with neoliberal polices. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 7: The neo-liberal/social-liberal tradeoff in the 4th Labour Govt

One of the most perplexing questions in the history of the left in New Zealand has been: Why was it a Labour Party that implemented the radical anti-worker neoliberal reforms? What’s more, why did the ‘left’ of the party allow the programme of Rogernomics to be implemented? The answer is partly that the Labour ‘left’ was so surprisingly tolerant towards the economic programme of the government due to the political backgrounds of the now dominant social liberal element in the party organisation. Their experience within the new social movements had taught the ‘new left’ in the Labour Party to concern itself with identity politics rather than class politics. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 6: The transformation of social liberalism into neo-liberalism

An examination of the history of left politics in New Zealand since the 1960s shows how liberal identity politics has actually aided the forces of the right in carrying out and maintaining the neoliberal project. This has occurred in various ways. At one level on the left there has simply been a shift since the late 1960s whereby a focus on economics and inequality has been jettisoned in favour of a concentration on identity politics. In terms of all forms of social change, electoral activity, and protest activism, the priority has thus been in pushing for social change on non-economic issues. This blog post argues that this has meant a transformation from social liberalism into neoliberalism. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 5: What is identity politics?

Increasingly the debates around New Zealand politics – especially relating to the left – feature concepts such as ‘identity politics’ and ‘social liberalism’. These terms are especially useful for understanding the history of Labour Party over the last thirty years, as well as for understanding the internal fights going on in the contemporary left. But just what is social liberalism and identity politics? This blog post argues that identity politics arose out of the rightwing of the new social movements that developed on the New Zealand left from the late 1960s. As liberation struggles developed around important issues relating to gender, sexuality and ethnicity, leftwing and class-based approaches to understanding and fighting for social equality were sidelined in favour of this more conservative approach. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 4: Understanding Labour’s tilt to the left

Phil Goff’s recent controversial speech, criticising the Maori and National parties, has been misread as a shift to the right. As explained in this blog series about ‘identity politics vs class politics’, Goff’s speech was in fact the opposite – actually quite a left-turn. This particular blog post contextualises the speech in terms of other important recent left maneuvers made by Labour and Goff. The significance and reasons for these shifts is evaluated and explained. This left shift needs to be taken seriously, and it asks for a critical reevaluation of the Labour Party and its divisions. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 3: Goff’s opportunism

Much of the left and liberal reaction to Goff’s speech has been to condemn Goff on the basis that he’s simply being opportunistic in his leftish attack on the Maori and National parties. This is – to some degree – a very fair criticism because, yes, of course Phil Goff is an innately opportunist politician, and because his newfound leftish critique of such issues jar against Goff’s own political history. But how much does such a charge of opportunism actually matter in evaluating Goff’s ‘left-turn’? This blog post discusses the salience of the charge and argues that although it means that Goff isn’t to be trusted in his newfound leftism, it’s no reason in itself to dismiss the shift. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 2: Playing the ‘race card’ or the ‘class card’?

Phil Goff has been accused by many on both the left and right of ‘playing the race card’ with his recent speech attacking the Maori and National parties. For example, on the Pundit blogsite, Tim Watkin says Goff has veered ‘in an unwelcome new direction, playing the race card’ and that the speech ‘has the air of dog whistle racism’. Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has called Goff’s speech ‘morally indefensible’, ‘a crime’, ‘cheap racism’, and a ‘cynical attempt to whip up racism’. But such kneejerk reactions show that New Zealand liberals have largely misread the nature of Goff’s speech. Rather than playing the ‘race card’, Goff has, if anything, actually been playing the ‘class card’. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 1: Introduction

Phil Goff has recently challenged issues that are at the core of socially liberal politics in New Zealand. The Labour Party leader has been asserting a more class-oriented and leftwing version of politics, effectively seeking to shift Labour away from a core part of its project of the last three decade: liberal identity politics. The meaningfulness and authenticity of this shift can be questioned, but the intrinsic tilt to the left cannot. While the conventional media and blogosphere interpretation of Labour’s new direction is to label it as either ‘social conservative’ or ‘rightwing’, Goff’s repositioning is in fact nothing of the sort. It is actually a newfound expression of relatively leftwing positions on important issues. What’s more, the controversy over the speech has sparked an important and long overdue debate within the New Zealand left about what it means to be leftwing in 2009, and what the way forward is for those interested in fighting for a more equal and just society. It has made the left confront questions of how concepts such as ‘social liberalism’, ‘political correctness’, ‘post-materialism’, and ‘identity politics’ fit into the leftwing project, if indeed they do at all. Yet, much of this significant debate occurs in an incredibly murky and confused manner, mainly due to an inability to conceptualise the different elements at play. So, in an attempt to contribute to this discussion, this blog post introduces a whole series of posts discussing these issues. The series attempts to reframe the debate and the terms of the debate in a way that is hopefully useful. It argues that to understand what’s going on in the Labour Party, what Goff has recently pushed for, and indeed what’s happened to the Green Party, is not a case of social liberalism versus social conservatism; nor is it left versus right; but instead it’s liberalism versus leftism – or simply: identity politics versus class politics. [Read more below]

Rebranding National – an academic view

How is it that a political party like National – deeply discredited by its extreme embrace of neoliberalism in the 1990s – could have so successfully found its way back into office last year? The answer is found in a recent conference paper given by André Broome of the University of Birmingham, entitled ‘Rebranding the Right? Political Baggage and the Redefinition of Party Identity’ [Download Broome]. Using the New Zealand National Party as a case study, Broome argues that rightwing parties rebrand to create distance from associations with previous – and unpopular – neoliberal terms in government. This excellent academic paper also explains why political marketing and branding have become such a central part of modern politics. It also argues that in countries like New Zealand, there is a very discernable shift towards policy convergence in elections, and a similar decline in the salience of left/right politics matched by an increase in postmaterialist competition. [Read more below]

The Green Party decade

Today the Green Party is celebrating a landmark that is well worth reflecting upon: ten years in Parliament. In our fluctuating MMP environment, that's quite an achievement. In this regard, various media are reporting some of my brief comments on the party’s achievements, current standing, and future. See the news articles on the TVNZ and NewstalkZB websites. I’m reported as saying that ‘the Green Party is sporting a “bland” new image and its biggest achievement is that it has survived’. This blog post expands on some of these comments, and draws attention to a new academic textbook chapter written about the Greens. [Read more below]

Who runs New Zealand in 2009?

The 6th annual Listener ‘power list’ is out this week – seeking to shine a light on who makes up the modern New Zealand Establishment. This blog post offers an extensive critical summary of, and commentary on, the Listener’s list. Highlights include:

• Politicians do well on the power list. Although there are only 12 MPs in the whole list, 4 out of the top 5 are politicians. New entries include Simon Power, Judith Collins, Tony Ryall and Nick Smith.
• The Listener sure to do love John Key – although he’s too managerial and not rightwing enough
• The A-list ‘Top 10’ has been expanded by the peculiar inclusion of Phil Goff in the #11 position!
• One significant change in the A-list is Rodney Hide’s elevation from #7 to #4,
• Notably, Rightwing Treasury boss John Whitehead jumps into the A-list at #9
• Air New Zealand’s Rob Fyfe’s sudden inclusion at #6 of the A-list is a bit trivial
• The Listener heralds the inclusion of the country’s senior receiver, Michael Stiassny at #7, as ‘the most telling detail about this year’s Power List’
• Tariana Turia, is the only woman in the Top 10 power list at #8
• There are seven women on the power list this year; there are seven Maori
• The Environment category is distinguished by the arrival of five completely new environmental power listers – including Gareth Morgan. Nick Smith surges into the #1 spot from nowhere
• Four of ‘Business & Economy’ places go to either new entries or re-entries on the power list
• All five of last year’s Maoridom power listers have been delisted from this category in 2009; Pita Sharples is #2, transferring from #6 on the 2008 A-list, and coming in for criticism from the Listener
• In the Media category, John Armstrong of the New Zealand Herald is #3. And David Farrar has finally made the power list.

[Read more below]

The changing nature of ideological conflict in New Zealand electoral politics (1996-2008): The rush to the centre & the rise of post-materialist issues

To what extent does the left-right political dimension still structure political party competition in New Zealand politics? Where do the parties sit on that spectrum? What other political dimensions now underpin our electoral politics? This extensive blog post presents the findings of a regular survey of New Zealand political scientists about party ideological conflict that has been carried out for the three MMP general elections of 1996, 2002, and 2008. Explaining the results, and drawing on some previous blog posts, it argues that the left-right spectrum is of declining importance in New Zealand politics, and that ideological conflict is cohered to a greater degree by post-materialist issues. The major political parties in New Zealand now all agree on the basic post-Keynesian economic framework that dominates discourse and policy formation. No party fundamentally challenges the paradigm shift that occurred with the neoliberal revolution that occurred from 1984 onwards. All parties now agree, explicitly or implicitly, that the market is the best mechanism for generating wealth and distributing good and services. Within this ‘new policy consensus’ there is, of course, room for some limited discussion of when and where the state should intervene to correct market failure, but because there is essentially no debate of any substance around material/economic issues, what might be called ‘postmaterial issues’ now represent the arena for ideological and political conflict in parliamentary politics. Furthermore, within this post-reform era political conflict is underpinned by a strong pragmatism rather than principle. Some explanations are proposed for the rise of the new consensus, the decline of left-right conflict, and the increasing salience of societal issues in electoral competition. [Read more below]    

Greens revealed as the biggest spender in Mt Albert by-election

The Green Party candidate in the recent Mt Albert by-election ran the most expensive campaign, spending an incredible $39,071, or about $15 per vote. Figures just released by the Electoral Commission show that Russel Norman outspent all other candidates in order to come a distant third in the race, with only 2,567 votes. Once again, this shows the Greens to be one of the rich parties, and that it continues to believe its own mistaken mantra that ‘money buys elections’. [Read more below]

Latest political party state funding budgets released

The Parliamentary Service recently published its Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2009, disclosing (in a rather opaque form) its many services and budgets that it provided to the parliamentary political parties during the last financial year. For example, in one parliamentary budget used by the parties – the so-called ‘Party and Member Support’ budget – the parties spent $14.9m during the 12 months to the end of June, of which National spent $6m, Labour $5.7m, the Greens $1m, and so on. On top of this, the parties collectively spent another $13m on ‘Information Services’ and nearly $11m on travel. Much of these budgets are being spent on highly partisan activities – such as Labour’s recent fake polling – and is therefore essentially a form of indirect state funding. This money is used for hiring specialist staff, publishing, postage of advertising, and so on. In total the Parliamentary Service appears to have spent around $125m during the last financial year. [Read more below]

Bill English, the Auditor General’s report, and corruption management

Bill English has clearly been absolved of the allegations against him in terms of whether he has broken the rules. But there are two wider issues that are raised by a reading of the Auditor General’s report – whether English has acted ethically, and how Ministerial Services came to have such defective rules. I’d argue that that a system of ‘corruption management’ has essentially led to this situation, whereby all political parties – rather than just Bill English – are using the financial resources of the state to maximize their personal and political advantage. [Read more below]

MSD social report 2009: Inequality increased in Labour's last year in office

The Ministry of Social Development has silently released its annual Social Report for 2009 – no doubt attempting to keep the findings under the radar. Likewise, the National Government has refrained from releasing a single press release on it (as yet). As always with the wealth of statistics in such reports, there is the good and the bad to be seized upon, and these things can be spun by the left and the right, and the various partisans in many different ways. I’ll leave Labour and National to give the positive spin on the current stats – and much of the negative material reflects poorly on the past Labour Government, for which the period of this report effectively covers. Instead, this blog post highlight some of the negative material that immediately sticks out from a browse of the report. There is one particular domain within the report that shows serious problems: ‘Economic Standard of Living’. Basically, since the last annual report – and thus during Labour’s last year in office – New Zealand became a less equal society, with increased inequality and greater poverty. [Read more below]

Sue Bradford: The Green Party has lost its radical edge and differentiation

Sue Bradford says that she is departing the Green Party in Parliament after her more leftwing political vision for the party was dismissed by the wider party when it chose Metiria Turei over her for the leadership. Following on from John Moore’s controversial post about on this entitled A bad marriage leads to divorce – the splintering of the Greens, I listened to a recent interview of Sue Bradford about her resignation and about the state of the Greens, and found that much of what Bradford said in this Radio New Zealand National Focus on Politics interview by Julian Robbins, actually backs up John Moore’s argument. Bradford is explicit that she is leaving Parliament because of the Greens rejecting her, and she states clearly that the party has lost its radical nature, is chasing middle voters, and that some in the Green Party will be happy about her departure because it allows the party to shift further to the right. [Read more below]

A bad marriage leads to divorce – the splintering of the Greens

Sue Bradford's resignation from Parliament has been met by dismay or sadness from much of the New Zealand left. Although the Green Party has been shifting rightwards for a number of years, the extent of this shift has become much more apparent now, and it will continue to do so because Bradford’s departure will be followed by further resignations from what remains of a leftwing in the Greens. Guest blogger John Moore argues that one positive outcome of Bradford’s resignation would be a complete leftwing break with the Greens – this would allow the Greens’ intrinsic political nature as a centre-right force to be exposed. In the meantime, Moore argues, any left-progressives that choose to stay in the party will inevitably only damage themselves by acting as a cover for what is in reality a pro-capitalist party of the Establishment. [Read more below]

Fixing political finance with a civil society approach

I’d like to think that Jane Clifton of the Listener has been reading my writings on political finance and state regulation of it, as her latest Listener Politics column puts forward very nicely my basic argument that state regulation of money in politics never actually works very well, and that we are better off with a civil society approach to ‘regulating’ the income and expenditure of political parties and interest groups. Of course, I doubt that Clifton has read anything I’ve written, and is instead actually just conveying what is actually a very common sense approach that should be obvious to just about anyone – even if very few politicians seem to comprehend it. [Read more below]

Crisis of the Thai Establishment

The very ideological foundations of the Thai nation-state are beginning to crumble. The traditional consensus around nation, religion and monarchy is breaking down, as a crisis of hegemony in Thailand has thrown this country into a period of irreconcilable conflict and crisis. This crisis goes beyond mere power plays involving conflicting civil and state groups. Government crackdowns on growing republican views are now commonplace, with lèse-majesté laws being regularly used to intimidate, arrest and imprison anti-government and anti-royalist activists. Yet public displays of anti-royalism were unheard of in Thailand just a few years ago. Guest blogger John Moore argues that the escalated use of such laws indicates a substantial breakdown of the Thai consensus on the role of the monarchy. He says that the myth built up around the Thai King has begun to be deconstructed, and this process of critical deconstruction is not an act being carried out by Thai academics, who on the whole remain loyal to the Thai royal house, but by the poor and disenfranchised of Thailand. [Read more below] 

Conclusions about the 2008 election campaign

New Zealand’s fifth MMP general election in 2008 was, according to the main party slogans, a contest between ‘trust’ and ‘a brighter future’. It was also one of the least dynamic and policy-oriented in living memory. The highly-professionalized strategies meant that it was certainly no contest of ideas or broadly different political options for voters. Despite the usual electoral hyperbole, the programmatic differences were more blurred than ever. This was especially noticeable in economic policy, with seemingly interchangeable economic outlooks, and virtually no disagreement on what should be done about the developing economic recession. In the absence of any substantive differences in economics, and with few other issues resonating with the public, the campaign came down to a choice of leadership. This is the conclusion of my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). The blog post below reproduces the draft conclusion of my chapter. Subsequently the draft chapter was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

The professionalisation of party campaigning

The 2008 general election campaign was both highly professionalized and bland. More than ever before, the New Zealand parties relied on professional campaign tactics and strategy, with the result that the campaign became highly meaningless for many voters, and because there was little to excite or enthuse the public, voter turnout was one of the lowest in over a hundred years. This is the overarching theme of my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). The blog post below reproduces the theory-based section of my draft chapter – which I subsequently cut out of the final version. This section explores the professionalisation of politics in New Zealand and how this is manifested in the electoral tactics and strategies of political parties. It argues that the modern professionalised nature of the political parties strongly influenced the dynamics of the 2008 campaign, the techniques utilized to sell the parties, and the ideological choices available to voters. [Read more below]

Maori Party's 2008 campaign

The Maori Party had three related objectives for the 2008 campaign: to win all seven Maori electorates, gain greater recognition as the ‘Treaty partner’ in Parliament, and have a role in the next government. Thus the party sought to project itself as the independent kingmaker of the election, hoping to take up the same strategic position that New Zealand First had held as an important player in past coalition negotiations, able to leverage disproportionate policy gains from the major parties. In order to gain this position, the Maori Party had to carefully construct an image of political neutrality between Labour and National. These are the issues that I focus on in the section on the Maori Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the 12th of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about the Maori Party that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

Act’s 2008 election campaign

Of all the minor parties, Act was the most ideally placed to gain from the centrist transformation of the National Party under John Key. National’s shift into the centre of the political spectrum meant that – unlike when Don Brash led National in 2005 – Act had a large potential market of voters on the right to win. Act did make use of that gap in the market, but was ambivalent and ambiguous about it orientation towards the popular centrist National Party, choosing sometimes to hug its rival and sometimes to bite it. In regards to this, I look at the party’s strategy in the section on the Act Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the 11th of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about Act that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

Annual Bruce Jesson Lecture to be given by Prof Robert Wade

This year's Bruce Jesson Lecture will be given by Robert Wade (Professor of Political Economy at the London School of Economics) on "How to stop the money men from taking over the world (or, when will we face another September 2008)?" The publicity says the following about Wade and his talk: "Taking off from Bruce Jesson’s ‘Only Their Purpose is Mad: ‘The money men take over NZ’, Robert Wade discusses several reforms of the international monetary and financial system aimed at stabilising global financial markets and curbing the power of the financial sector. After considering the easy part -- ‘what should be done’ -- he goes on to discuss ‘what can be done’, nationally, regionally and globally. Professor Robert Wade is one of the world’s most prominent independent thinkers about the contemporary challenges facing the global economy. As professor of political economy at the London School of Economics, Wade espouses a heterdox approach to economics in contrast to the prevailing neoliberal / neoclassical paradigm. As an expatriate New Zealander he has continued to contribute to discussions on New Zealand’s economic direction, including in the context of the global economic crisis."

Wednesday 28 October, 6:30pm
Maidment Theatre, Alfred St
University of Auckland

The impact of the Electoral Finance Act on third parties in the 2008 New Zealand election campaign

Throughout the New Zealand Labour Government’s recent three terms in office (1999-2008), issues of political finance were particularly controversial, culminating with the Electoral Finance Act 2007 (EFA) being widely debated as either a cure or poison for fair elections. But just how much impact did the now-defunct EFA have on the actual 2008 general election campaign? In particularly, how did the new regime impact on the electoral participation of civil society via its various interest groups (now commonly referred to in political finance discussions as ‘third parties’)? Did the predictions made in 2007 that the EFA would put ‘democracy under threat’ come to pass?  Certainly during the campaign, many commentators noted that third party organisations were having less input into the campaign debate. Opponents of the EFA  complained that the new rules were stymieing freedom of expression and political debate. Some talked of a ‘litigious bomb waiting to go off’ (Otago Daily Times 2008), while other commentators declared that ‘The EFA’s dampening effect on the current election campaign is so serious, it is anti-democratic’ (Clark and Nicholls 2008). Furthermore, just nine weeks out from election day, the head of the Electoral Commission declared that the uncertainty resulting from the legislation was having a ‘chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity’ (Electoral Commission 2008a). The commission also made a number of controversial decisions during the campaign that suggested the EFA was indeed affecting the campaign. There were minor controversies about the legality of everything from Tui beer billboard advertising to Act Party leader Rodney Hide’s yellow jacket, with a host of other legal rulings and court cases highlighting the legal uncertainty and complexity of the EFA. Yet it was possibly in the area of civil society’s organised interest groups such as trade unions, sector groups, and business associations that the impact was most strongly felt. Below is a draft paper I've written on this issue, which I'm presenting at an academic conference at the end of September. This paper weighs up the evidence, pinpoints where the EFA had the most impact on civil society, and details some of the Electoral Commission’s more controversial and salient decisions. As usual I welcome your feedback and corrections via email or as comments at the end. [Read more below]

NZ First’s 2008 election campaign

Of all the parliamentary parties, New Zealand First’s 2008 election campaign was possibly the most impressive and successful. Obviously the party failed to make it back into Parliament, yet it only just missed out, managing to elevate its public support up from within the ‘margin of error’ of the opinion polls, to 4.1 per cent. The party obtained the fourth highest party vote, and was only denied representation in the new Parliament because of the exclusionary and undemocratic five per cent MMP threshold. New Zealand First actually won a greater proportion of the party vote than both the Act Party and the Maori Party (both of whom were allocated five seats each). Thus, by nearly making it back into Parliament, New Zealand First’s performance belied the projections of most political commentators. I look at the party’s strategy in the section on New Zealand First within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the 10th of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about New Zealand First that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

The Greens’ 2008 election campaign

In 2008 the Green Party was set to become the third largest party in Parliament. To get there the party attempted to take a qualitatively different approach to the past – adopting a highly professsionalised and market-oriented strategy. Taking the ‘Americanisation’ of politics towards its logical conclusion the Green also embraced a very celebrity-focused method of campaigning, while still relying on some traditional minor party media stunts. The party also attempted to break out of its ‘left ghetto’ but with mixed success. These are some of the issues that I focus on in the section on the Green Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the ninth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about the Greens that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

Labour’s 2008 election campaign

The Labour Party’s 2008 general election campaign strategy had two main flaws: its decision to campaign on the theme of trust (together with a general negativity), and its management of coalition party possibilities. Not only did these strategies fail to fire during the campaign, but instead backfired, contributing to Labour’s failure to remain a truly competitive player in the election. These are the issues that I focus on in the section on the Labour Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the eighth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about Labour that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

National’s 2008 election campaign

The National Party’s 2008 general election campaign strategy was widely criticised for being conservative and uninspiring. There were three main integral elements that contributed to this blandness: an ideologically-centrist election platform, a relatively policy-free approach, and a general ultra-cautious attempt to avoid mistakes or cause offence to any voters. These are the issues that I focus on in the section on the National Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the seventh of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about National that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

Review of “Speaking Truth to Power” – where are all the public intellectuals?

There’s an important discussion going on over at the Kiwipolitico blog on the question of “Does New Zealand have Public Intellectuals?” This is a topic of great interest to me, and I argued recently in my Drinking Liberally talk on “What’s left in 2009 in New Zealand?” (and subsequently posted on my blog here) that the New Zealand left is currently at an extremely low point partly related to the fact that ‘there’s few leftwing intellectuals of any prominence’ anymore, which seemed to spark some interest and debate. As a contribution to the ongoing debate at Kiwipolitico (and now on Chris Trotter’s Bowalley Road blog here), I’ve republished my own review of the seminar 2008 book entitled Speaking Truth to Power, edited by Laurence Simmons. My review was published in early 2008 in the Political Science journal. At the time I also published extensive explorations of the various chapters of Speaking Truth to Power. Here are the links to the relevant blog posts on Bruce Jesson, Nicky Hager, Brian Easton, Jane Kelsey, Sandra Coney, Laurence Simmons, Michael King, Roger Horrocks, Belich, Waring and Walker, as well as my posts about Chris Trotter’s review of the book, and Mark Broatch’s Sunday Star Times book review. But my own review is below. [Read more below]

Leaders debates and interviews in the 2008 NZ election

Which of Labour and National instigated last years’ blocking of minor parties from the TV leaders election debates? The answer is in a chapter by Geoffrey Craig entitled ‘Leaders’ Debates and News Media Interviews’, which is in the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the sixth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). Craig has put together a chapter that nicely chronicles the various debates that played a central role in the 2008 election campaign. [Read more below]

What’s left in 2009 in New Zealand?

In July I gave a talk to the Dunedin branch of Drinking Liberally on the topic of “What’s left in 2009 in New Zealand?” The rough notes I used for my talk are below (although I didn’t actually read the speech sentence-for-sentence, nor did I use every paragraph). It sparked off some very interesting discussion about the state of the left. Some of the main questions I was asking were:

• Is the left-right political spectrum still relevant to politics in New Zealand?
• What other spectrums are now useful for understanding politics?
• What is the difference between left-right and liberal-conservative in modern NZ politics?
• Why is politics increasingly based more around societal issues instead of economic ones? [Read more below]

Political advertising in the 2008 NZ election

Which political parties had the best advertising in the last year’s general election? How come the Greens’ had such good advertising but did relatively poorly? What was wrong with Labour’s advertising? What was right about National’s advertising strategy? Did New Zealand First lose representation because of, or despite of, its election advertising and strategy? Did the Electoral Finance Act properly define and understand what a political advertisement is? Claire Robinson answers these questions in her chapter entitled ‘”Vote for me”’: Political Advertising’, published in Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the fifth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). [Read more below]

Matt McCarten: “there is an ethical sickness in our Parliament”

Matt McCarten has written the best commentary so far on Philip Field’s conviction for corruption and bribery by linking it very plausibly to the ongoing parliamentary expenses scandal. Field’s corruption springs from the same ‘avaricious political culture of Parliamentary entitlement’ that has infected virtually all contemporary MPs and political parties. McCarten’s whole column is worth reading in full, but it’s the last part that most crucially highlights the fact that the biggest rort is actually due to the parliamentary parties themselves corruptly appropriating taxpayer funds for partisan political activity:

In my opinion there is an ethical sickness in our Parliament when even senior MPs no longer see themselves as the people's servants in public duty, but as political elites who are entitled to the maximum remuneration and perks they can give themselves.  But the rort isn't just restricted to individual benefits. All the parties now collectively fleece the taxpayer to fund their political election machines.  For example, three of the four main candidates in the recent Mt Albert byelection were already MPs and receiving their salaries and expenses right through the campaign.  In addition, the campaign staff were either MPs as well or Parliamentary staff with most of their costs paid.  Even the Prime Minister authorised a Cabinet minister on full pay to manage his candidate's campaign for eight weeks. The salary bill for just that was a good part of $40,000.  This week, a lone MP was convicted in court for corruption. But our whole political system is fraudulent. Party organisations as we used to know them no longer exist in a meaningful way.  List MPs are effectively party organisers and parties are covertly funded by taxpayers through the back door. Every party is guilty of it. This week the senior leaders of every Parliamentary party should have been in the defendant's dock with Field.

David Lange's expose of Philip Field's dodgy political finance

The conviction of ex-MP Philip Field for corruption, reminded me that David Lange had once regarded Field as unscrupulous in terms of political finance back in the 1990s. In a remarkably unusual attack on a fellow party member, Lange wrote the following lengthy expose of Field in one of his newspaper columns, suggesting that he was guilty of illegal electoral practices:

Mr Field returned expenditure of $14,996, accounting for his spending on posters, pamphlets, hoardings and signwriting. He did not declare the costs of advertising two campaign fundraising socials and a campaign rally, or the costs of the food, drink and entertainment which were offered at these events. He made no allowance for the running costs of his campaign van, or for its purchase price or its depreciation.  On the other side of the ledger, he returned a donation of $5000 from the Otara Labour Party Trust, but did not disclose another sum of $15,000 given to him by the same trust.  These matters were referred to the Electoral Office, which referred them to Mr Field. After considering his reply, the Electoral Office decided that it would not refer Mr Field’s return to the police, because it was not satisfied that any offence against the Electoral Act had been committed.  The act broadly has it that campaign spending need be returned if it relates exclusively to the campaign for the return of the candidate (spending which relates to the return of two or more candidates is to be apportioned). Mr Field told the Electoral Office that the advertising left out of his return did not relate exclusively to his campaign.  "The fund-raising social," he declared, "was held to raise funds which were used for a variety of purposes including for the Labour Party as a whole. Proceeds also went towards funding the Mangere Labour Party organisation, including its local committee activities, meetings and levies payable to the party’s head office."  According to the Electoral Office, the undeclared advertising for the campaign rally promoted not only Mr Field’s candidacy but also the launch of Labour’s Pacific Island policy, noting that in respect of the campaign social, the member had stated that this "was also not a function exclusively related to the campaign for my return as the candidate for Mangere".  The costs of the vehicle, Mr Field advised, were not declared because it was purchased while he was not only candidate for Mangere but MP for Otara, and needed the van for his electoral work as well as his election campaign (David Lange, ‘Law Made in an Age When MPs Did Not Behave like Tax Laywers’, Press, p.11, 29 July 1997).

In this, Lange alerted us to the potentially corrupt nature of Field, but also to the difficulties in policing New Zealand’s political finance regulations. The Electoral Commission has very few powers to investigate discrepancies or to check that the parties are following the rules. The system essentially relies on the honesty of the parties and politicians. Lange showed that the Electoral Commission must take the parties at their word on any regulation inconsistencies and problems.

(I see that Poneke has also drawn attention to Lange's disputes with Field).

A critique of the disclosure of MP expenses

The rort of parliamentary expenses for MPs and parties continues, and the latest move to open up the books should be understood as a defensive attempt to quell the growing public concern about political corruption while also confusing the issue and robbing the public of their right to know how politicians spend public money on themselves. The following critique – drawing on a previous critique of the Greens’ disclosure of expenses – argues that there should be maximum transparency for the use of parliamentary funding. Millions of dollars of MP and party expenses are still unaccounted for, which this blog post draws attention to. [Read more below]

epolitics in the 2008 NZ election

How well were electronic forms of politics utilised in last year’s general election? How effectively did the political parties and electorate candidates use websites, email, social networking in their campaigning? What about bloggers and the mainstream media? These questions are addressed in a chapter by Peter John Chen about ‘the role, use and impact of online media in New Zealand’s 2008 election’, published in Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the fourth of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). [Read more below]

The Maori Party and newspaper coverage in the 2008 NZ election

Newspaper coverage of Maori issues and the Maori Party during last years’ election campaign was very fair and reasonable according to a chapter by Ann Sullivan in the just published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the third of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). Sullivan says in her chapter that the 2008 media reporting was significantly better than in 2005 when sub-editing in particular relied on stereotypes and negativities. In 2008 the print media seemed more positive and ‘was generally fair, objective and reasonable’. [Read more below]

Newspaper coverage of the 2008 NZ election

How well did the daily newspapers cover the 2008 election campaign? Did readers get good, substantial information to make informed choices between parties? Or did the papers focus on the personalities and events, and more superficial aspects of the campaign? Was the ‘horse race’ given greater coverage than policy? Was ‘there a structural bias towards coverage of the major players?’ The answers are found in a chapter by Otago University’s Chris Rudd and Janine Hayward in the just published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the second of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). In their comprehensive chapter Rudd and Hayward use a content analysis of four of New Zealand’s most popular newspapers published during the last month of the campaign [Read more below]

Helen Clark biography out soon

The long-awaited publication of Denis Welch’s biography of Helen Clark is almost over. Welch has just blogged to say that "Helen Clark: a Political Life" will be out in 16 days time – Friday 31 July. While I doubt that Welch’s bio will be critical enough for me, I do expect that it will be a highly intelligent and relatively critical account. It’d be an important book, especially because, as the publisher’s blurb argues, ‘Remarkably, no proper political biography of Helen Clark has been written before’. And a recent posting on Denis Welch’s great Opposable Thumb blog, foreshadows an insightful and interesting examination of contemporary New Zealand politics – he argues against this idea that the politics of Helen Clark and Labour are significantly different to that of National. [Read more below]

Labour's latest taxpayer-funded advertising

The Labour Party continues to exploit its taxpayer funded parliamentary resources for the purpose of blatant party political advertising. With leader Phil Goff doing so poorly in opinion polls, the party is dipping its hand into the public purse to try and improve his profile. The image on the right is the front section of a leaflet that is being dropped into letterboxes all over the country. It promotes "Brand Goff", which is incidentally rather bland - there's not a lot in the leaflet that couldn't also appear in a National "Brand Key" leaflet. His advertising slogan is: "Hard work. Inspiration. And a fierce belief in New Zealand." I'm sure that just about any politician could sign up to such a slogan. But added to the selling of Brand Goff is of course, "Brand Labour", along with its well proportioned party logo on the front. It's hard to believe that anyone could look at such an expensive leaflet and not think that it's basic party electioneering instead of carrying out any sort of parliamentary function. Of course, the leaflet does include a section professing to ask for public feedback, but this too is just a ruse to make it seem more parliamentary while also harvesting elector data for future political direct marketing. [See the full Labour Party leaflet below]

Television coverage of the 2008 NZ election

How well did TV1 and TV3 cover the 2008 election campaign? Was it banal and superficial? Or in depth and serious? What issues were covered by TV? Which leaders got the best coverage? The answers are found in a chapter by Massey University’s Associate Professor Margie Comrie in the just published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the first of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). In her comprehensive chapter Comrie uses a content analysis of the official campaign period ‘to examine some questions about the quantity and quality of coverage and about the role of the two channels as providers of information and entertainment, as watchdogs or even junkyard dogs’. She has a lot of positive things to say, but also laments the shift towards an emphasis on individual politicians, especially the leaders of the two dominant parties, the focus on superficial campaign events, and the talking up of fleeting political ‘scandals’ rather than actually covering policies. [Read more below]

Unite's campaign for a living wage – the need for a radical programme

The Unite union has taken on the ambitious project of ending poverty wages by initiating a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum petition. Its campaign aims to achieve an immediate rise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour, leading eventually to it being pegged at two-thirds of the average wage. In this blog post, guest blogger John Moore – who is currently collecting signatures to help Unite obtain over 300,000 signatures within the next 12 months – examines both the merits and limits of Unite’s drive to fight poverty pay. He argues that although this campaign is worthy of support by unionised workers, leftists and the low paid, it unfortunately falls short of seriously countering the current crisis of working class living conditions in New Zealand. He proposes more radical demands. [Read more below]

Ministry of Justice political finance submissions due

The Ministry of Justice is inviting public submissions on its ‘Electoral Finance Reform Issues Paper’, and the deadline is tomorrow (Friday 26 June). The Ministry has a poor record of involvement in political finance issues, and this latest exercise continues in that fashion. The Issues Paper is rather substandard in quality, displays a poor understanding of the issues, and is not a particularly adequate basis for beginning an attempted programme of reform. I’ll outline some of the problems with the Issues Paper in a future blog post. I’ll also upload my submission on the paper once I’ve written it – I’ve only just had a chance to read the paper. You can download a PDF of the Issues Paper here, from the Ministry’s Electoral Finance Reform sub-site. Not surprisingly, however, the Ministry don't make it entirely clear that they want submissions to be made in a special purpose submission form and it hasn't exactly been easy to find the actual form - a Word version of the submission form is here.

‘A far-left social libertarian’

As someone who is highly interested in political ideology and ways of conceptualizing and explaining politics, I’m an enthusiast for the various online political ideological spectrum tests around. Although hardly perfect, they are useful mechanisms for helping us understand politics and comparative political issues – especially because they often allow for more complexity than just the simple – yet important – left-right dimension. I recently took the test at the gotoquiz.com’s Political Spectrum Quiz, and it turns out that I can be categorized as ‘a far-left social libertarian’ - Left: 7.7, Libertarian: 7.11. [Read more below]

A critique of the Greens’ political finance disclosure

The Green Party has long posed as the ‘party of political honesty’ and of political finance transparency. Green politicians love to repeat the metaphor that ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’ for political finance corruption. Yet although they have often demanded somewhat draconian transparency when it comes to the private finances of other parties, when it comes to their own sources of public finance – particularly their reliance on backdoor parliamentary state funding – the Greens prefer opaqueness and obfuscation. It should not be surprising therefore that the Green Party response to increasing public concern about the use by politicians of taxpayer resources and expenses has been worse than useless. Rather than helping ‘open the books’ as the party promised, the Greens have disingenuously attempted to limit public knowledge of MP expenses and parliamentary budgets. Not only has the party only provided very limited information about its use of parliamentary funding, but the model that the Greens have put forward for disclosure actually attempts to quell the growing public concern about political corruption while also confusing the issue and robbing the public of their right to know how politicians spend public money on themselves. The following critique of the Green Party’s recent political finance disclosure argues that there should be maximum transparency for the use of parliamentary funding and that the reason the Greens are doing their best to limit the books being opened is because that party has the most to lose from parliamentary transparency. [Read more below]

The politics of Chris Knox

The news that New Zealand artist and social commentator Chris Knox has suffered a serious stroke is incredibly sad to hear. As a sort of tribute to Knox, I thought I’d post the responses that he wrote to a political questionnaire that I asked him to fill in about 15 years ago for a leftwing magazine. The content is a bit dated now, of course, but gives a good idea as to the interesting politics of this important leftwing New Zealander. Although in recent years, Knox has been rather soft on the Labour Party, his answers to the questionnaire indicate a rather critical and politically sophisticated punk. [Read more below]

[NewLabour Party history] 26: Conclusions (and bibliography)

The formation of the NLP appeared to represent the beginning of a radical or left-orientated realignment in the New Zealand political landscape. Rather than being merely a product of Jim Anderton’s personal dissatisfaction with the course of the Fourth Labour Government — as the media tended to portray the NLP — the establishment of this new party represented the rejection of neoliberal economic policies by a section of traditional Labour voters, and elements of both the far-left and new social movements. [Read more below]

[NewLabour Party history] 25: The cross-class basis of the Alliance and its consequences

The rightward shift of the NewLabour Party (NLP) that — as I have described it in the previous blog posts, mirrored a similar evolution of the Labour Party  — is closely linked to a shift in class orientation, which is a process that again mirrored Labour’s own. In the case of the NLP, the watershed point was the formation of the Alliance, a multi-class electoral coalition. Thus, policy evolution, to an important degree, reflects class orientation. [Read more below]

[NewLabour Party history] 24: Resistance to party change

Just as in the 1980s, when some members of the New Zealand Labour Party resisted what they saw as the corruption Labour’s traditional ideals and the rightward transformation of the party under the parliamentary leadership of the Fourth Labour government, substantial numbers of NewLabour Party (NLP) members attempted to resist the NLP’s shift towards the right in the ideological spectrum. To do this they had to fight against the attempts to suppress dissent, and had to choose between tactics of 'voice' or 'exit'. [Read more below]